Also, I use pro-life and pro-choice because those are the most widespread terms, and the least loaded. I generally discount anyone who uses "pro-abortion" or "anti-choice" when describing their opposition. One, very few people on either side actually hold those specific views, and Two, usually those who use those terms are looking for a fight, not a discussion.

Well said; I've been frustrated reading through the thread and having people who support abortion rights complain that they too are "pro-life."  Obviously the terms pro-choice and pro-life have an English meaning, but in the context of a political discussion they are used to broadly identify a particular set of views about abortion.  People using this line are conflating two distinct meanings when the question of which should apply is obvious.

Posted at August 4, 2005 2:41 PM in response to the only way that democrats can regain a majority

Site just updated, now 52% for Schmidt with 580 precincts reporting.

Posted at August 2, 2005 6:33 PM in response to Squeaker in Ohio 2

Actually, I live in the south (Texas to be specific).  I just graduated from college though, so perhaps my perspective is skewed by age rather than geography.

Posted at August 2, 2005 2:58 PM in response to Moderation In Pursuit of What?

Take a look at this Pew Center political typology and you'll see that there are a substantial number of Democrats with social conservative leanings and a substantial number of Republicans with progressive economic leanings.
 

As a Republican, this is very surprising to me.  Of course most of the Republicans I know are both socially and economically conservative; however, the second largest group (the ones that voted for Bush reluctantly) are economically conservative but socially liberal.  I wouldn't say they are libertarian (none of them are in favor of legalizing drugs), but on most of the big-issue social questions like gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, etc. their views range from apathetic to tolerant.

This is similarly reflected in the relatively libertarian leanings of most of the conservative, but non-Republican, blogs (instapundit, for example, as opposed to redstate).

Posted at August 1, 2005 11:39 PM in response to Moderation In Pursuit of What?

For Cloudy:

I think you want something more aggressively anti-strict constructionist (and I'm sure it is out there), but Antonin Scalia has actually participated in a book somewhat of this nature called "A Matter of Interpretation":

In it, he lays out the case for his particular approach to constitutional interpretation.  Following is four responses by well known liberal constitutional scholars like Larry Tribe.  Concluding is Scalia's response to each of those four scholars.

If you want a comprehensive "takedown" of strict constructionism, it isn't there, but it is a good overview of both the Scalia approach to law and criticisms of that approach.

Also, allow me to respond to "where's their strict construction of the 11th Amendment? Hmmm?"  A perfect example of this is the majority opinion (written by Rehnquist) in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett.  The precedent cases (such as Seminole Tribe v. Florida and City of Boerne v. Flores) also follow in this mode.  For an overview of these cases, I recommend Greenhouse's article on the subject.

Finally, those above suggesting Roberts is a Scalia or Thomas wannabe reveal their inability to distinguish between various shades of conservatism.  All indications suggest that Roberts is very much in the mold Justice Rehnquist or Judge Friendly.  Neither have temperments similar to Scalia or Thomas.  Certainly Roberts will vote conservatively, but he is unlikely to be a conservative "crusader" seeking to remake constitutional law with broad written opinions.

Posted at July 31, 2005 1:58 AM in response to Some Thoughts on Judge Roberts